Transcript Screening for dyslexia, dyspraxia and visual stress in HE

Screening for dyslexia,
dyspraxia and visual stress in
HE
S.A. Nichols, J.S. McLeod, J.M. Brown,
L.J. Smith, F. Summerfield, R.L. Holder *
Centre for Inclusive Learning Support,
University of Worcester
* University of Birmingham
Original Aims
To analyse the effectiveness of current screening
practice at UW and compare it with a computerised
method, LADS (Lucid Adult Screening Test):
Tutor method consists of selected subtests from:
Bangor Dyslexia Test (BDTA) (Miles 1983); and
Dyslexia Adult Screening Test (DASTA) (Fawcett
and Nicolson 1998)
Definitions
• Dyslexia “is evident when accurate or
fluent word reading and/or spelling
develops very incompletely or with great
difficulty’ (Singleton, 1999, p.18)
• Dyspraxia is regarded as an impairment
or immaturity of the organisation of
movement. Associated with this may be
problems of language, perception and
thought (Dyspraxia Foundation, 2007)
Definitions
• Visual stress is not currently defined as a
specific learning difficulty. In identifying
stress we follow the definition by Kriss and
Evans (2005, p.1) of a syndrome
characterised by ‘symptoms of visual
stress and visual perception disorders that
are alleviated by using individually
prescribed colour filters.’
The screening and assessment
process
Self
Referral
Screening
-ve =
suggest
other
help
+ve
=Assessment
Debrief
DSA
applied
for
121
support
starts
Needs
Assessment
Model
• As screeners we are looking for signs of
the same difficulties used by assessors to
identify SpLD.
• We do not spend much time exploring the
student’s history of difficulty, nor do we
look at differentials between underlying
ability and achievement. So we are looking
for problems in the following:
Difficulties investigated
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Working memory
Phonological processing
Visual processing
Sequencing and orientation
Hand-eye coordination
Spelling
Reading
Writing
Plus possible genetic factors
Recruitment Process
347 ITE students are
given details of
project by project
team during lectures
and are invited to
volunteer
100
participants are
recruited from
UW students
99 participants
complete
computer and
tutor screenings
and 2
questionnaires
3 volunteer
from other
subject
disciplines
and are
not
recruited
1 participant
withdraws before
completing both
screenings
99 participants
complete
computer and
tutor
screenings
28
participants
screened
negative by
both
screenings
30
participants
screened
positive by
both
screenings
Screening results
10
participants
screened
positive by
computer
only
All 71 invited
to
assessment
31
participants
screened
positive by
tutor only
7
participants
withdraw
before being
assessed
All 71
invited to
assessment
Project process
7 were
previously
assessed for
dyslexia: 3
were reassessed
4 participants
are still to be
assessed
56
assessments
were
completed
4 earlier
assessments
were included
60
assessments
used in
analysis
Co-morbidity of dyslexia, dyspraxia and visual
stress from the 60 assessments used.
Dyslexia
Dyspraxia
5
21
4
8
1
5
1
Visual Stress
Assessed negative
= 15
Additional Aims
• How well does our tutor screening tool
identify SpLD?
• Can the tool, or the process with which it is
used, be improved?
Analysis
To assess the accuracy of our battery for identifying
SpLDs, we:
• calculated sensitivity and specificity for various
combinations of subtests
• calculated the statistical significance of correlations
between each subtest and each condition
• used logistic stepwise regression analysis to
determine the most effective combination of tests
Percent
Dyslexia
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
92
72
78
77
86
82
65
BDTA
DASTA
sensitivity
Tutor
specificity
69
LADS
Percent
Dyspraxia
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
94
78
67
61
72 70
64
49
BDTA
DASTA
sensitivity
Tutor
specificity
LADS
Visual Stress
100
Percent
80
100
88
71
62
65 68
66
60
49
40
20
0
BDTA
DASTA
sensitivity
Tutor
LADS
specificity
Any SpLD
100
81
Percent
80
69
88
76
93
88
74
64
60
40
20
0
BDTA
DASTA
sensitivity
Tutor
LADS
specificity
BDTA
familial
incidence
b/d confusion
p <0.05
months rvsd
p <0.01
months fwd
Any SpLD
tables
Visual
Stress
subtraction
Dyspraxia
polysyllables
left-right
Dyslexia
DASTA
rapid naming
p <0.05
digit span
p <0.01
one min writing
Any SpLD
nonsense
Visual Stress
two minute
spelling
Dyspraxia
phonemic seg.
one minute
reading
Dyslexia
Sum of stepwise regression
analyses
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Left/right confusions
Polysyllables
Subtraction
b/d confusions
One minute reading
Phonemic segmentation
Digit span
Nonsense reading
One minute writing
What next?
• A shortened battery of screening tests plus test
for visual stress
• A computerised pre-screening test
• An analysis of barriers to referral
• Further promotion of the Disability and Dyslexia
Service.
One minute reading for a student
aged 22 -24 years
• 97 – 126 words = no risk
• 86 – 96 words = low risk
• 71 – 85 words = moderate risk
• 70 or less words = high risk
One minute writing for a student
aged 22 – 24 years
• 32 -39 words = no risk
• 30 -31 = low risk
• 21 -29 = moderate risk
• 20 or less = high risk
Questions?